Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsus20

Download by: [166.4.166.190] Date: 01 October 2015, At: 12:21

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

ISSN: 0966-9582 (Print) 1747-7646 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Indicator development methodology for volunteertourism in host communities: creating a low-cost,locally applicable, rapid assessment tool

Christopher A. Lupoli, Wayde C. Morse, Conner Bailey & John Schelhas

To cite this article: Christopher A. Lupoli, Wayde C. Morse, Conner Bailey & John Schelhas(2015) Indicator development methodology for volunteer tourism in host communities:creating a low-cost, locally applicable, rapid assessment tool, Journal of Sustainable Tourism,23:5, 726-747, DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1008498

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1008498

View supplementary material

Published online: 25 Feb 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 181

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Indicator development methodology for volunteer tourism in

host communities: creating a low-cost, locally applicable, rapid

assessment tool

Christopher A. Lupolia*, Wayde C. Morsea, Conner Baileyb and John Schelhasc

aSchool of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA; bDepartment ofAgricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA; cUSDA ForestService, Athens, GA, USA

(Received 27 February 2013; accepted 20 December 2014)

Two prominent critiques of volunteer tourism are that it is a top-down imposed formof development treating host communities as passive recipients of international aid,and that the impacts of volunteer tourism in host communities are not systematicallyevaluated. To address this we identified a pre-existing participatory methodology forassessing community sustainability (the compass of sustainability) and adapted it as arapid low-cost indicator tool for volunteer tourism impact evaluation. We created andtested a development methodology that could be applied through local communityworkshops by local people and sending organizations within each unique hostcommunity, and repeated over time. Testing took place in five contrastingcommunities hosting volunteer tourism in Ecuador and Costa Rica. Each workshopgenerated and organized numerous indicators of community welfare, categorized intonature, economy, society and personal well-being. Interrelations were identifiedamong the indicators to promote a systemic understanding of community well-being.Indicators were prioritized and strategies for measuring impacts were discussed toencourage the establishment of accomplishable goals. Evaluation of the compassmethod as a tool for community participation in indicator development is discussed asa potential facilitator for local voices and the construction of “third spaces” involunteer tourism.

Keywords: volunteer tourism; indicators; participatory planning; tourism impacts;community participation

Introduction

It is becoming increasingly popular to combine travel with volunteer work in humanitar-

ian aid, community development or environmental conservation projects. This type of

travel, often referred to as “volunteer tourism”, is a rapidly growing tourism sector

(Butcher & Smith, 2010; McGehee, 2014; Tomazos & Butler, 2009; Tourism Research

and Marketing, 2008). Volunteer tourism is defined by Wearing (2001) as:

a type of alternative tourism in which tourists volunteer in an organized way to undertake holi-days that might involve aiding or alleviating the material poverty of some groups in society,the restoration of certain environments or research into aspects of society or environment.

One of the foundations of volunteer tourism is that it generates positive impacts in

host communities of less-developed countries and fosters a mutually beneficial

*Corresponding author. Email: cal0022@auburn.edu

� 2015 Taylor & Francis

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2015

Vol. 23, No. 5, 726�747, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1008498

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

relationship between hosts and guests (Butcher & Smith, 2010; McIntosh & Zahra, 2007;

Sin, 2009, 2010). Wearing (2001) similarly asserts that the fundamental purpose of volun-

teer tourism is to promote international community development, environmental conser-

vation and scientific research. However, commentaries on the local impacts of volunteer

tourism rarely include host community voices (Fee & Mdee, 2011; Lyons, Hanley, Wear-

ing, & Neil, 2012; Mdee & Emmott, 2008; Tourism Research and Marketing, 2008).

Little research explores how to achieve mutual benefit between volunteer tourists and

host communities and the perceptions and attitudes of community members exposed to

volunteer tourists (Benson & Wearing, 2012; Gray & Campbell, 2007; McGehee, 2012;

McGehee & Andereck, 2009; McIntosh & Zahra, 2007; Raymond, 2008; Sin, 2010).

Numerous scholars suggest that additional research must be conducted to assess the

impacts of volunteer tourism in host communities and the perspectives of host community

members (Halpenny & Cassie, 2003; Lyons, 2003; Raymond, 2011; Sin, 2009; Wearing,

2004). Benson and Wearing (2012) recently concluded that mechanisms have not been

developed to assess the impacts that volunteer tourists have in host communities: current

evaluations are often anecdotal.

Any initiative to evaluate the local impacts of volunteer tourism must be cognizant of

the strong critiques of volunteer tourism and its local impacts: volunteer tourism has been

criticized as reinforcing the dominant hegemony and being a disempowering and top-

down form of Western-imposed colonialism and development processes that portrays host

communities are passive recipients of aid (Benson & Henderson, 2011; Cheong & Miller,

2000; Guttentag, 2011; Palacios, 2010; Simpson, 2004; Vodopivek & Jaffe, 2011).

Simpson (2004) argues that volunteer tourism follows a top-down process which external-

izes the course of development and places it in the hands of foreign organizations and

mostly unskilled volunteer laborers, Eddins (2013) and Palacios (2010) assert that volun-

teer tourism pertains to a line of Western domination in the development process, and

Devereux (2008) argues that volunteer tourism can be a form of imperialism and paternal-

istic charity while serving as an individual’s quest for career and personal development.

Such severe critiques of volunteer tourism are not generalizable to all organizations

and programs, but nevertheless provide insights for a future agenda of impact evaluation.

Many development practitioners now promote a bottom-up and participatory approach to

development (Simpson, 2004). Within the realm of tourism many argue for making host

communities an integral part of the planning process and promoting active citizen partici-

pation to reduce dependency, obtain community support, generate appropriate decisions,

increase motivation and acceptance of tourism projects, and link local benefits to commu-

nity needs (Cole, 2006; Hitchcock, 1993; Sin, 2009).

Wearing and Wearing (2006) help frame this new direction of research focused on the

three pillars of volunteer tourism including the tourists, the host community and the send-

ing organization. They identify how a “third space” of host community interactions may

be developed, “When the destination communities’ views are considered and given some

credence there are possibilities for alternate programs of tourism and counter-discourse to

hegemonic modes of interaction” (p. 147). They suggest the importance of incorporating

an element of bottom-up development and empowering host communities through their

direct participation in planning and evaluating volunteer tourism. A recent study explored

third spaces using a community participatory approach with a community capital perspec-

tive to understand volunteer tourism’s impacts on host communities (Zahra & McGehee,

2013). They identify impacts across all of the capital categories, identify two new

capitals, and examined how third space decommodified experiences were developed

when all three stakeholders worked together.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 727

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

This paucity of research on the local impacts of volunteer tourism and third space

development justifies this paper’s new research agenda to address it. There is a need for

methodologies that acquire host community input in identifying and evaluating the local

impacts of volunteer tourism, and methodologies that follow a participatory process to

facilitate citizen engagement. Indicators and indicator development have been identified as

critical elements to inform decision-makers and planners about “social trends and changes

in resources related to ecological health and quality of life in host communities” (Choi &

Sirakaya, 2006; Sirakaya, Jamal, & Choi, 2001). In their review and analysis, Sirkaya et al.

(2001) highlight the critical role of the inclusion of local stakeholders in the indicator

development process. Strickland-Munro and others (2010) also note that poorly selected

indicators can lead to a misrepresentation of impacts suggesting that local perspectives are

critical. This is a shift “away from the centrality of the tourist and towards the central role

of the community” (Wearing & McGehee, 2013). Such a methodology must also involve

the participation of volunteer tourism organizations and other stakeholders that make vol-

unteer tourism projects possible and because “discrepancies between host communities

and sending organizations can result in friction between host communities and volunteer

tourists” (Zahra & McGehee, 2013). This perspective recognizes that volunteer tourism

organizations can be sources “for positive sociocultural change or facilitators of neo-

colonialism and dependency” (McGehee, 2012). Furthermore, a participatory method

should be repeatable as both the life cycle of tourism and the host community context

(Strickland-Munro, Allison, & Moore, 2010) and local’s attitudes and preferences change

over time (Gursoy, Chi, & Dryer, 2009). Finally, any participatory method must be practi-

cal and address the limited time, money and resources that volunteer tourism organizations

and host communities themselves have available for conducting such an evaluation.

Research purpose

This research study responds to the need for a rapid participatory methodology to identify

and assess the impacts of volunteer tourism in host communities. It identifies and tests a

methodology that directly engages host community members as collaborators in the eval-

uation process. It is also designed to match-up with an indicator development process for

sending organizations. Based on early scoping interviews with sending organizations, it

was determined that a rapid assessment through a short workshop and follow-up is

something that communities and sending organizations would both be interested, willing

and able to conduct on a repeated basis within each destination community.

The methodology presented here for community participation is part of a larger proj-

ect that also elicited the indicators that volunteer tourist sending organizations identified

as important and useful for monitoring in host communities (Lupoli, Morse, Bailey, &

Schelhas, 2014). Within this project the indicators developed from the sending organiza-

tions are compared to those developed in the communities. This is seen as a starting point

for continued dialogue to develop common indicators of the impacts of volunteer tourism

in the host communities from both perspectives. The design enables sending organiza-

tions to become catalysts of positive change, to empower communities to directly partici-

pate in planning and evaluating volunteer tourism and to facilitate third space

development. Together the hosts and the sending organizations can begin to develop third

spaces for volunteer tourists and community members by discussing the important indica-

tors that each has developed.

The compass of sustainability by AtKisson (2011), an existing participatory method-

ology for evaluating community well-being and sustainability, was adapted as a

728 C.A. Lupoli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

framework for this research. This methodology is designed to solicit the input of diverse

stakeholders to develop indicators of community well-being that can be monitored to

assess community sustainability. It was tested in five community workshops in Ecuador

and Costa Rica. Analyses of the indicators derived in the workshops and the results of

workshop activities are used: (1) to assess the appropriateness of the methodology for vol-

unteer tourism in small rural communities; (2) to generate and categorize an extensive list

of potential indicators for monitoring the community impacts of volunteer tourism; (3) to

examine the effectiveness of the selected methodology as an organizational scheme for

indicators; and (4) to refine the methodology as an instrument useful in guiding future

impact evaluations. Strengths and weaknesses of the methodology, and potential future

improvement and implementation are discussed. It is a contribution to the emerging field

of participatory indicator development and local impact assessment for volunteer tourism.

Selecting a framework and methodology for indicator development

Scholars increasingly suggest the use of indirect measures, or indicators, as a strategy for

assessing the varied community impacts of tourism and promoting sustainable develop-

ment through tourism (Budruk & Phillips, 2011; Hughes, 2002; Miller & Twining-Ward,

2005; Roberts & Tribe, 2008; World Tourism Organization [WTO], 2004). The WTO

(2004, p. 8) defines indicators as “measures of the existence or severity of current issues,

signals of upcoming situations or problems, measures of risk and potential need for

action, and means to identify and measure the results of our actions”. According to Miller

and Twining-Ward (2005), indicators provide an integrated view of tourism’s relationship

with the economy, environment, and society; they also serve to assess trends and indicate

if a situation is moving in a sustainable direction.

Numerous indicator development frameworks exist to assess phenomena such as com-

munity well-being, community sustainability, sustainable development, and sustainable

tourism. All are applicable to this research due to existing parallels between these phe-

nomena and volunteer tourism, such as poverty alleviation, economic opportunity,

increasing standard of living, and natural resource conservation. Examples include the tri-

ple bottom line framework of sustainability, incorporating economy, environment and

socio-cultural aspects (Roberts & Tribe, 2008; Wood, 2004); the three systems of sustain-

able development (human, support, and natural systems) by Bossel (2001); the human

and social capital and livelihoods approach of Njuki et al. (2008); the compass of sustain-

ability by AtKisson (2011) that frames community sustainability as a system of nature,

society, well-being and economy; and a framework by Meadows (2008) that focuses on a

hierarchical triangle with four levels consisting of natural capital, built and human capital,

human and social capital, with well-being at the top and as the end goal.

Having a clear and logical organizational framework can avoid long lists of unrelated

indicators and reduce arbitrariness in the indicator development process (Miller &

Twining-Ward, 2005; Reed et al., 2005). However, categorizing indicators thematically

can disregard interrelations and causal chains between different systems (Meadows,

2008; Schianetz & Kavanagh, 2008). Meadows (2008) adds that thematic methodologies

of indicator development are easily used in a bottom-up approach but that this approach

must be accompanied by a systems approach to recognize such interrelations between

systems. Many scholars, therefore, suggest that a framework for indicator development

must be holistic and recognize the interconnectivity in the tourist system, including the

environmental, economic and socio-cultural attributes of the destination (Bossell, 1999;

Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005; Roberts & Tribe, 2008).

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 729

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

A myriad of frameworks for developing and organizing indicators of community well-

being were considered for application in this research. Given the increasing importance

placed on citizen participation and bottom-up development processes, the incorporation

of diverse stakeholders, and the interrelations of the environmental, economic and socio-

cultural factors of the tourist destination, the “compass of sustainability” framework was

chosen. It was created by AtKisson (2011) for the purpose of guiding the development of

indicators to assess sustainable community development.

The “compass of sustainability” (hereafter referred to as “the compass”) framework

incorporates the diverse impacts that development may have on a community, divided

into four categories: nature (N), which refers to the “underlying health and sustainable

management of key ecosystems, bio-geo-physical cycles and natural resources”; economy

(E), which “refers to all the ways human beings work with nature, with knowledge and

with each other to produce the things and services that they need or want”: society (S),

which refers to “the social systems, structures and institutions that are driven by people

acting collectively”: and well-being (W), which “focuses on the individual, as well as on

the smaller webs of intimate relationships that are crucial to health and happiness”

(AtKisson, 2011, pp. 145�146). These represent the four compass points and are intended

to all be of equal value and equally considered. Figure 1 visually illustrates the four com-

pass points in this framework.

The compass framework was chosen to frame this study and the community work-

shops for several reasons. It represents a holistic and systems perspective of the environ-

mental, economic, social and personal well-being aspects of a community. It is also a

highly participatory methodology that focuses on soliciting information from diverse

stakeholders and community members, as well as directly involving community members

in developing and monitoring indicators. Importantly, the compass framework is amena-

ble to use as a rapid assessment tool in a short workshop. In this way, the compass pro-

vides an organizational scheme for indicators and promotes bottom-up process but

maintains a systems perspective on indicator development.

The compass framework is also highly versatile and has been applied and adapted

across a diversity of environments and circumstances though not published in the

reviewed literature. For this research study, the compass framework was modified to fit a

volunteer tourism model and the context of volunteer tourism in rural Latin America.

Figure 1. The compass of sustainability.Source: AtKisson Inc.

730 C.A. Lupoli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

Literature on the compass framework (AtKisson, 2011) includes a method for conducting

community workshops based on the four directions of the compass. It organizes discus-

sion and an indicator development process around the four elements of community sus-

tainability, represented as the four compass points. It also focuses on incorporating

diverse individuals into group discussions to promote information-sharing and the expres-

sion of diverse viewpoints while also reaching common ground and identifying potential

opportunities for change. This process was adapted to the context of the rural communi-

ties in Ecuador and Costa Rica where workshops were held.

Methods

A multiple case study design was employed. According to Yin (2009), this follows a rep-

lication design in which the same procedure (in this case, the compass methodology) is

tested in several unique host communities. Due to the high degree of variability among

communities and diverse cultural, social, environmental, economic and political factors,

it would be difficult to control for certain community characteristics to predict similar or

contrasting results. It is also unlikely that the results or conclusions from the five commu-

nities in this multiple case study can be extrapolated to other volunteer tourism host com-

munities. For this reason, the multiple case study approach focuses on refining and testing

a methodology (the compass) as a rapid, low-cost, assessment tool to identify and assess

the diverse impacts that volunteer tourism may have in a host community. This sets the

foundation for a community or sending organization to form a plan of action and have

effective tools to assess and monitor the ongoing community impacts of their volunteer

tourism program(s). Once tested and refined in five unique host communities, this meth-

odology can then be employed in many other communities that host volunteer tourism

projects by the communities themselves and/or in collaboration with the sending

organization.

Two case studies were conducted in Ecuador and three in Costa Rica. Each case study

was conducted in a community that hosts a volunteer tourism program and consisted of a

one-day community workshop to acquire input from numerous stakeholders within the

community and other stakeholders involved in the volunteer tourism program.

Effort was made to identify a diversity of communities and approaches to volunteer

tourism to test the compass methodology in five unique case studies. Some specific con-

siderations were the inclusion of the following elements: (1) indigenous and mestizo

(non-indigenous) communities; (2) programs that represent diverse types of volunteer

tourism activities; (3) communities that work with volunteer tourism organizations

located outside the host country; (4) communities that work with volunteer tourism organ-

izations located within the host country; (5) communities that work independently of

other volunteer tourist recruiting organizations; and (6) volunteer tourism organizations

of various sizes (<100 volunteers per year, 100�250 volunteers per year, and >250 vol-

unteers per year).

The communities were selected based on contacts formed during the application of an

Internet questionnaire and telephone interviews conducted from 2011 to 2012, all of

which comprise an earlier phase of this research study (Lupoli, 2013). The questionnaire

dealt with many aspects of volunteer tourism and was sent to representatives of volunteer

tourism organizations based in the USA, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand and

numerous Latin American countries (see Lupoli, 2013). A subset of questionnaire

respondents was later interviewed over the telephone. Several of the questionnaire

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 731

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

respondents and interviewees expressed interest in being selected as case studies for this

research project.

Only countries in Latin America were considered for the case studies because this

study has an international focus and the authors of this paper have extensive experience

working in Latin America. The questionnaire revealed that Costa Rica, Peru and Ecuador

are the most popular volunteer tourism destinations in Latin America. Numerous commu-

nities and projects in these countries were considered and then narrowed down to Costa

Rica and Ecuador. Travel logistics and costs made Costa Rica and Ecuador ideal destina-

tions for this case study research.

Case study profiles

Community #1 is an indigenous community located in the mountains of northern Ecuador.

It receives a small number of volunteer tourists per year (<10) who generally stay for sev-

eral months at a time. The volunteer tourists are recruited by an Ecuadorian organization

that recruits between 100 and 250 volunteers per year for placement in one of several host

communities. The volunteer tourists in community #1 work primarily in education, natural

resource conservation and agriculture projects alongside community members.

Community #2 is an indigenous community located in the Amazonian region of

southern Ecuador. It receives 50�100 volunteer tourists per year and the volunteers gen-

erally stay for short periods of time (1�2 weeks). The community recruits its own volun-

teer tourists through its website and is not dependent on any national or international

organization for volunteer recruitment. Volunteers engage in daily community activities

such as agriculture, gathering forest products and household duties, and also collaborate

with the local school.

Community #3 is a non-indigenous community on Costa Rica’s Atlantic coast. It

receives a large number of volunteer tourists seasonally (during turtle nesting season),

many of which are recruited by a Costa Rican organization that recruits under 250 inter-

national volunteers per year for placement in one of several host communities. Some vol-

unteer tourists in this community stay for a short amount of time (1�2 weeks) and others

stay several months as research assistants. Volunteer activities are almost exclusively ori-

ented towards sea turtle conservation, monitoring and research.

Community #4 is a non-indigenous community located near Costa Rica’s Pacific

coast. Many of the volunteers in this community are initially recruited by a large volun-

teer tourism company based in the UK that recruits 250�500 volunteers per year for proj-

ects in numerous countries. This company collaborates with a Spanish language school in

Costa Rica to provide its volunteer recruits with an experience in Costa Rica that incorpo-

rates language study and volunteer service. Volunteer stays are generally short in commu-

nity #4, lasting from one to several weeks. Volunteer activities are diverse and include

work with an animal rescue center, agriculture, and education.

Community #5 is a non-indigenous community located in Costa Rica’s mountainous

interior. It receives volunteer tourists who are recruited by a very large international vol-

unteer tourism organization based in the USA that recruits over 2000 volunteers per year

for projects in numerous countries. Activities and trip logistics for volunteer tourists in

community #5 are coordinated by a domestic tour company. Volunteer stays are short,

lasting from one to several weeks. Volunteer activities are diverse and focus on recycling,

natural resource conservation, infrastructure improvement and education.

Across all the communities, the typical volunteer tourists were from northern Europe

or the USA, and relatively few had Spanish language skills.

732 C.A. Lupoli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

Workshop procedure

The primary author of this paper, a fluent Spanish speaker, served as facilitator in all

community workshops. The workshops were held during August and September 2012.

Before arrival in each community, one or more local contacts were established (gener-

ally local coordinators) and were made aware of the purpose and details of the workshop.

Each local contact was responsible for recruiting approximately 12 stakeholders to par-

ticipate in the workshop and for arranging other necessary logistics. A start list of com-

munity member workshop participant profile suggestions was given to the local contact

including descriptions such as: someone who directly works with the volunteer tourists,

someone who does not have connections to the volunteer tourist project, teacher, men,

women, etc. They were asked to use these profiles to form a diverse group within the

community.

Workshops ranged in size from 8 to 21 participants; most participants were host com-

munity members who were involved in volunteer tourism in various ways, while some

participants represented external volunteer tourism organizations or other entities that

collaborate with volunteer tourism in the community, such as nearby schools, health clin-

ics, NGOs and government offices. The workshops, conducted in Spanish, lasted an aver-

age of 4�5 hours each. They were simple, uncomplicated and informal events, held in

local community buildings or schools, skillfully organized to encourage participation,

and ensure relevance to the community and to the aims of the research.

The workshop began with an icebreaker activity in which each participant presented

him/herself and his/her involvement with volunteer tourism. The workshop facilitator

then presented the main points and purpose of the workshop: (1) to establish the desires

and priorities of the community; (2) to discuss the diverse local impacts of volunteer tour-

ism in the community; (3) to develop a list of impacts that are of high priority to the com-

munity; (4) to identify strategies for evaluating or measuring the high-priority impacts in

order to establish future goals; and (5) to establish a path for the future of volunteer tour-

ism in the community.

The creation of a long-term vision for the destination was included in the workshop

procedure (point 1 in above paragraph) as a recommendation by the WTO (2004) for indi-

cator development. This participatory activity is designed to define what the stakeholders

wish to accomplish with respect to tourism in general, and helps determine what is impor-

tant for the destination. To accomplish this first goal of the workshop, the group was pre-

sented with a large sheet of paper with the heading: Community Vision. The facilitator

clarified the meaning of this term and presented to the participants the incomplete state-

ment: Through volunteer tourism, we hope to _________ (translated from Spanish). Par-

ticipants then brainstormed numerous ideas to fill in the blank. All participants were

encouraged to present ideas. The purpose of this activity was to establish a set of commu-

nity goals which could later serve as a point of reference to understand if and how volun-

teer tourism could help accomplish such goals, as well as to see if the workshop revealed

new or underlying community priorities not present in the initial visioning exercise.

To organize the diverse impacts of volunteer tourism in the community, the compass

framework was used. While the English version of the compass methodology uses the

cardinal points (N, E, S, W) for differentiating indicators into four unique categories

(nature, economy, society, well-being), this presented an obstacle when translated into

Spanish. Well-being is translated as bienestar in Spanish, while the cardinal point west is

translated as oeste. As the “O” of oeste does not match the “B” of bienestar, this element

of the compass was modified. The term oportunidades (opportunities) was used because

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 733

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

it matches the “O” of oeste. The facilitator briefly explained the connection between the

concepts of “opportunity” and “well-being”. The other compass points did not present dif-

ficulty in the Spanish translation.

The compass framework was visually presented and explained to the participants. The

participants brainstormed one or two examples of local volunteer tourism impacts for

each compass point to ensure their comprehension of the compass framework. The partic-

ipants then randomly divided into four small groups (approximately three participants per

group) and the facilitator assigned one compass point to each group. Each group then

worked together to brainstorm a list of the impacts that have been observed (or that they

wish to achieve) as a result of volunteer tourism, focusing only on those that correspond

to their compass point. Once finished, the groups placed their papers on the wall to form a

visual compass and took turns presenting their ideas to the audience. The term “impacts”

was used instead of “indicators” in the workshops because “impacts” is a more easily

understandable term and can be understood as positive or negative in nature. The transla-

tion of “impacts” was combined with the term measures to promote the same concept as

indicators. These terms were confirmed with a number of native Spanish speakers as pre-

ferred. These two terms are used interchangeably in this paper although literature on the

compass methodology uses the term “indicator”.

The compass methodology emphasizes the linkages between nature, economy, society

and personal well-being, in particular how one impact in one of these categories can also

have secondary impacts in the community that may correspond to other compass catego-

ries. To demonstrate this, two volunteer participants used pieces of string and tape to

physically connect indicators on different points on the compass that are causally linked.

Participants in the audience provided ideas on potential linkages between different indica-

tors while the two volunteers connected them. This resulted in the beginning stages of a

“systems map” (see Figure 3). This exercise allowed participants to see some of the lever-

age points in the system, which indicate areas that are causally linked to many other

points and represent places to induce future changes.

To prioritize the numerous indicators that participants had identified and placed onto

the compass, each participant received three stickers in four different colors (12 stickers

per person). Each person then placed stickers on the three most important or desired indi-

cators (according to his/her perspective) in each compass category. The string linkages

may have helped participants to visually identify key leverage points and thus prioritize

certain indicators in the voting process. The number of stickers placed onto each indicator

was summed and participants were able to visualize identify the highest priority (most

voted) indicators in each compass point.

The facilitator spoke about the importance of establishing community goals that can

be achieved through volunteer tourism, and about the importance of being able to evalu-

ate or measure the desired impacts of volunteer tourism. In this way, the community will

be able to assess in the future whether or not such goals are being accomplished. The

facilitator presented on a paper the most important impact from each compass category

(as identified from the sticker count) and the participants brainstormed ideas on how each

impact could be measured or evaluated in the future. This activity helped participants to

think about how desired impacts could be assessed in the future, and also to think about

the challenges present in assessing some impacts that cannot be easily quantified. The

facilitator clarified that the results of the workshop would be used to produce a useful tool

for developing indicators of the environmental, economic, social, and personal well-being

impacts of volunteer tourism, with the goal that organizations and host communities col-

laborate in measuring and monitoring the impacts.

734 C.A. Lupoli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

To conclude the workshop, the facilitator solicited feedback from participants regard-

ing the success of the workshop and suggestions for future improvement. Two distinct

strategies were tested by the facilitator to accomplish this. In initial workshops the evalua-

tions were conducted orally as a group. In later workshops the facilitator experimented

with a new technique: providing participants with a large piece of paper on the wall and

markers to write individual comments in a more confidential manner.

Data analysis

All workshop data in written form (posters, indicators on the compass) were transcribed

immediately after the workshop. Indicators such as supply of instructional materials and

level of cultural exchange derived in the five workshops were summed (166 total indica-

tors) and then coded into emergent thematic categories. Eighteen unique indicator themes

were developed. A diversity of indicators is represented within each indicator theme and

each theme is not mutually exclusive as some indicators could have been placed into

more than one theme. In most cases the most relevant theme was chosen. A few indicators

contained multiple ideas that corresponded to different themes. For this reason, five indi-

cators were coded into two different themes.

For each community compass, several calculations were made: (1) the number of indi-

cators on the compass that corresponded to each indicator theme; (2) the number of stick-

ers (votes) received by each indicator theme (which represents a summation of sticker

counts for all indicators of each theme on the compass); (3) the number of times that each

indicator was connected to another indicator on the compass by the concept map; and (4)

the average number of stickers that each indicator theme received per participant

(achieved by dividing the total sticker count of each indicator theme by the number of

workshop participants that participated in the sticker exercise). This final calculation

allowed the data on sticker counts to be summed among all five workshops without being

biased by the number of participants in each workshop.

The community vision statements from all five workshops were joined and coded to

identify frequently occurring themes. The same themes used from the indicator list were

applied to code the vision statements. One additional code (growth in tourism) was added

because it did not occur directly in the indicator list.

Results

Community visions

Figure 2 represents the themes present in the community vision statements derived from

the five workshops. Community development/organization and natural resource manage-

ment were the most prevalent themes among vision statements in terms of the number of

occurrences (seven occurrences each). However, community development/organization

was only present in three community vision statements while natural resource manage-

ment was only present in two community vision statements (indicated by the shaded

bars). Education was almost as prevalent among all communities (six occurrences) but

this theme was also present in all five community vision statements. Table 1 provides

some examples of the coding process for community vision statements (translated from

Spanish).

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 735

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

Indicator development

Figure 3 represents a summation of all indicators derived in the five workshops, coded

into 18 themes. Themes are organized in order of total indicator count, from top to bot-

tom. Within each theme (horizontal bar), the number of its indicators that correspond to

each compass point is represented to visually gauge how each indicator theme was dis-

tributed among the compass points.

Figure 2. Themes present in community vision statements.

Table 1. Examples of categorization of community vision statements into themes.

Theme Through volunteer tourism, we hope to. . .

Community development/organization . . .involve the community.

. . .beautify the community.

. . .improve infrastructure in the community.

. . .produce more interpretive signs in the community.

Natural resource management . . .maintain biodiversity.

. . .protect the beach.

. . .improve the turtle population.

. . .motivate communities to conserve the environment.

Education . . .create a center for language instruction.

. . .change the mentality of community members.

. . .fortify the educational system.

. . .provide training for community members.

736 C.A. Lupoli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

The most prevalent theme was education, comprising 22 indicators. All four compass

points are represented in this theme, though mostly E (economy), S (society), and W

(well-being). Cultural exchange with volunteers is the second most predominant theme,

comprising 18 indicators. It is much less evenly distributed along the compass, with most

of the indicators in the W (well-being) compass point and a small number in S (society).

Other prevalent themes such as community development/organization, cultural impacts/

changes and infrastructure are slightly more evenly distributed along the compass. Some

indicators such as environmental health and reforestation were exclusively categorized

into the N (nature) compass point.

Table 2 illustrates some examples of the indicator coding process. The diversity

among indicators within each theme can be appreciated, as well as the unifying elements

among the indicators in each theme. A complete list of all indicators (translated from

Spanish) and their corresponding thematic categories can be found in Lupoli (2013) and

as Supplementary Data to the online version of this paper.

Figure 4 shows the average number of times that each indicator theme received a

sticker vote by a workshop participant. To calculate this, the total number of sticker votes

for each indicator theme was divided by the number of workshop participants. These five

values (for the five communities) were then averaged together, representing a summation

of all five case studies.

Figure 3. Summation of workshop-derived indicators by theme/compass point.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 737

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

The indicator data attained in each workshop present three unique but correlated

potential calculations to illustrate how each group of participants prioritized certain indi-

cator themes. This consists of: (1) the number of times a theme appeared on the compass;

(2) the number of votes (stickers) received for each indicator theme; and (3) the number

Table 2. Examples of indicator thematic categories.

Theme Example indicators

Education Supplying instructional materials

Training for people who have not had the opportunity to go to school

Educational exchanges and scholarships

Learning English

Cultural exchange withvolunteers

Appreciation of cultures; cultural exchange

Teaching of dance

Learning about the culture of the volunteers

Training/socialization among volunteers and locals (sports, soccer)

Community development/organization

Improving the community (infrastructure, sanitation, education)

Need to create a committee to plan volunteer tourism

Community unity (more community wide events)

Creating a social fund for the community

Figure 4. Indicator theme prioritization by participant.

738 C.A. Lupoli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

of times that an indicator of a particular theme is connected to another indicator on the

concept map. Table 3 provides an example of how this was done for one of the five case

study communities. The most highly prioritized theme (education) received the highest

number of mentions, highest number of votes, and had the highest number of connections

on the concept map. Moving towards indicators of lower priority (from top to bottom in

the table), the values in all three columns show a general pattern of decrease.

Although the aforementioned Figures 2�4 suggest general patterns among communi-

ties, there is a substantial amount of variation in indicator prioritization among communi-

ties. For example, Figure 3 illustrates the number of stickers (votes) achieved by the top

three overall indicator themes from Figure 4 (education, community development/organi-

zation and cultural impacts) on a per community basis. Education is overall the most pop-

ular theme but varies greatly in importance among the communities. Community

development/organization and cultural impacts also vary substantially in the degree to

which they are prioritized among the five communities.

Discussion

Lessons learned from the data

The compass methodology functioned as a framework to develop and organize indicators

of the impacts of volunteer tourism in the five host communities that comprise this multi-

ple case study. The compass methodology also facilitated prioritization of the indicators

from the perspective of diverse host community stakeholders.

Participants were able to complete the workshop within an afternoon providing a sig-

nificant amount of information on indicators, how they were linked in a system, and how

they ranked among the participants. Additionally, the mix of preferred indicators was not

the same across the five communities indicating that the methodology was sensitive

Table 3. Three forms of calculating the importance of indicator themes.

Community #1

Indicator themeNumber ofmentions

Number ofvotes (stickers)

Number ofconnections

Education 7 38 7

Cultural impacts 4 19 4

Agriculture 4 15 5

Health 1 10 2

Environmental health 2 8 1

Cultural preservation 1 8 1

Reforestation 1 9 0

Personal income 2 5 1

Wildlife conservation 1 4 1

Business development 2 1 2

Community development/organization 2 3 0

Cultural exchange with volunteers 3 1 1

Natural resource management 1 0 0

Recycling 1 0 0

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 739

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

enough to identify these differences. This is critical: selecting community appropriate

indicators is essential for accurately measuring volunteer tourism’s impacts in these dif-

ferent contexts (Mascarenhas et al. 2010; Strickland-Munro et al. 2010). Finally, feedback

on the quick and simple method was that participants were both appreciative of the oppor-

tunity to give input and comfortable with the format, suggesting that they would be will-

ing to do it again in the future.

Education was a prevalent indicator theme in the data from these communities: more

indicators relate to education than any other theme and education was present in all five

community vision statements. This suggests that the theme of education is a priority for

all five host communities. Vision statements also suggest that some communities are

heavily oriented towards the themes of community development/organization and natural

resource management.

Personal income was also expected to be a prevalent theme due to the significant eco-

nomic impacts of volunteer tourism. However, only one community vision statement had

two mentions of personal income, while this theme was not present in the other four com-

munity vision statements. It was also not among the most frequently mentioned indicator

themes and rated lower than social/cultural indicator themes. This may be due to the per-

sonal nature of this theme, while the community vision exercise is a discussion on com-

munity-level impacts which may de-emphasize personal impacts. Similarly, participants

may also have been reluctant to admit that personal income was a priority. As personal

income ranks higher in Figure 4 (sticker votes) than Figure 3 (number of mentions), it is

possible that participants place a high value on this theme but are less reluctant to express

it publicly.

Three other popular indicator themes (cultural exchange with volunteers, community

development/organization and cultural impacts/changes) indicate a high priority placed

on the socio-cultural and communal impacts of volunteer tourism. The cultural exchange

items were frequently located within the well-being category of the compass framework.

The cultural exchange indicators and language have been found by others as critical for

third space development suggesting that including this new category has tangible benefits

(Palacios, 2010; Zahra & McGehee, 2013). This suggests that host communities may

value these indirect impacts of volunteer tourism more so than the direct impacts of some

popular volunteer activities, such as infrastructure development and environmental con-

servation. Such activities are still important though, as a large amount of indicators

related to categories such as “infrastructure” and “wildlife conservation”.

These results propose a broader conclusion: the responses of many workshop partici-

pants suggest that they may value less tangible impacts (such as education and cultural

exchange) more so than impacts that are more visible, measurable and tangible, such as

infrastructure development and personal monetary income. Likewise, the differing results

between Figures 2 and 3 are indicative of one of the advantages of the compass methodol-

ogy: it forces participants to see impacts in four unique categories. The community vision

exercise was conducted before the presentation of the compass and did not require that

participants consider the personal and economic impacts of volunteer tourism. This may

explain the existence of some economic indicators (such as income) and personal well-

being indicators (such as teaching English) that were nearly or completely absent from

community vision statements.

One of the strengths of the systems exercise (connecting participant developed indica-

tors with strings) within the compass methodology is that it reinforces the concept of an

integrated system and the interconnectedness of all indicators. Figure 3 demonstrates that

several of the indicator themes represent three or four compass points. It is therefore

740 C.A. Lupoli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

evident that workshop participants saw the ramifications of such impacts on several or all

points of the compass. For example, indicators related to education and community devel-

opment/organization represent all four compass categories, particularly economy, society

and well-being. Other themes such as personal income, wildlife conservation, environ-

mental health and reforestation were strongly linked to one compass point, such as econ-

omy or nature. This suggests that future workshops may focus on stressing the ways in

which such indicators can also have unforeseen impacts in other compass categories. The

second most popular theme (cultural exchange with volunteers) is primarily represented

on the compass point of “personal well-being”. This suggests that many workshop partici-

pants highly value the cultural exchange they have with volunteers and that this is a posi-

tive contribution to their lives.

This paper presents two approaches to identifying prevalent indicator themes: an

overall count of the number of times that each theme was represented on a community

compass (shown in Figure 3), and the average number of times than each indicator theme

received a sticker from a workshop participant (shown in Figure 4). In many cases the

latter strategy reinforces the findings of the first strategy. Education is a top priority in

both cases: it was the most commonly mentioned indicator and the average participant

selected over two education-related indicators in the voting process, substantially more

than the majority of other indicator themes. Education, cultural exchange, community

development/organization and cultural impacts are among the top five themes in both

figures. Figure 4 also helps to confirm the validity of the compass methodology in

establishing and prioritizing indicators. The most prevalent indicator themes also gener-

ally received the most stickers, suggesting that most frequently mentioned themes were

viewed as high priority from the perspective of workshop participants. Another advan-

tage of the sticker voting process was that it allowed participants to identify indicators of

high personal priority in a less public manner, as the voting process was semi-

confidential.

Table 3 revealed three distinct and useful measures for assessing the results of the

indicator development and prioritization process. The theme of education is clearly pre-

dominant as it had the highest number of mentions, highest number of sticker votes, and

the highest number of connections on the compass map. The pattern of decrease from top

to bottom in each column indicates that any of these three variables is useful in prioritiz-

ing indicators. Future implementations of the compass methodology may also consider

combining all three variables into an index. One caveat in using the number of connec-

tions as a variable is the need to produce a complete concept map. In the workshops con-

ducted for this research, the concept map exercise was conducted more as a

demonstration in systems thinking and the concept maps produced were not exhaustive.

More time could have been spent identifying additional linkages among indicators on the

compass. Doing so would have more clearly identified indicators of high priority due to

their influence on other elements of the system.

Each community is unique in the types of indicators that it prioritizes and while some

patterns are present, they are not generalizable to all communities. Another important

point here is that many indicators are community-specific. While some indicators

appeared several times across several communities (such as providing scholarships or cre-

ating international friendships � see online Supplementary Data), most indicators were

unique. It is for this reason that an indicator theme approach was taken in this paper,

rather than comparing individual indicators. These findings stress the importance of iden-

tifying locally specific indicators on a community-by-community basis to capture this het-

erogeneity among host communities.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 741

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

Lessons learned in adapting the compass

The adaptation of the compass framework and method for indicator development to the

context of rural communities in Ecuador and Costa Rica involved some challenges and

some key lessons were also learned. The workshops focused on verbal expression and

interactive activities because many of the participants had a low level of formal education

and minimal reading/writing skills. The use of strings to produce the concept map and

stickers to prioritize impacts are some examples of this. Visual aids were used when pos-

sible, such as the use of a ruler to introduce the concept of “impact measurement” and the

visual illustration of an eye to discuss the concept of “vision”. The facilitator also experi-

mented with additional interactive activities to reinforce workshop concepts.

A significant challenge for this participatory methodology in the context of volunteer

tourism in small rural communities is the divide between local community members who

often have a low level of formal education and non-local stakeholders who have a higher

level of formal education and knowledge of the volunteer tourism industry. In many occa-

sions, these latter individuals dominated conversations and brainstorming exercises while

some local community members were silent or much less vocal. This highlights the need

for a skilled facilitator who can ensure that all workshop participants have the opportunity

to provide input. If this does not occur, it can be unclear if the workshop data include

input from both local and non-local workshop participants or if the data primarily reflect

the ideas of non-local participants. As the workshop is designed to acquire the perspec-

tives of local community members and promote a bottom-up development process, this is

an issue that needs to be considered for further development of this methodology in the

context of volunteer tourism.

The interactive elements of the workshop including the creation of the systems map

with strings, and the use of stickers to prioritize impacts, were successful in communicat-

ing key concepts and steps of the methodology that would otherwise have been challeng-

ing. As such, future implementers of the compass methodology may consider these as

potential additions to the methodology.

Conclusion

We believe that the methodology presented here has four primary benefits: (1) the ability

to rapidly assess indicators in a cost and time effective manner; (2) the compass frame-

work dimensions are easily understood and in their simplicity useful for eliciting a variety

of indicators; (3) the simple systems activity was understandable and used in the rankings;

and (4) the methodology opens the door for exploration of third space volunteer tourism

development negotiations with sending organizations.

“When destination communities’ views are given credence, possibilities emerge for

alternate programs of tourism and counter-discourse to hegemonic modes of interaction”

(Wearing & McGehee, 2013, p. 125). This research study contributes to the emerging

field of participatory indicator development and local impact assessment for volunteer

tourism and opens a dialogue to develop new “third space” volunteer tourism opportuni-

ties. The methodology presented here is one phase of engaging the community, the next

phase is for the host community and sending organization to begin dialogue using their

own indicator sets as a foundation for discussion. Furthermore, when assessed across

cases, these indicators can be used to evaluate and highlight good practices that

“maximize potential benefits and reduce potential negative impacts” (Wearing &

McGehee, 2013, p. 124).

742 C.A. Lupoli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

In this paper, a rapid participatory methodology was tested, refined and proved effec-

tive in identifying, organizing and prioritizing indicators that are locally appropriate and

represent diverse local impacts of volunteer tourism. Some caveats presented themselves

as the methodology was implemented and must be addressed for the future. By testing the

compass methodology in five communities, an extensive indicator list was developed.

This list serves several purposes: (1) it can be used in future workshops for communities

to learn about how other communities are impacted by volunteer tourism to draw compar-

isons and contrasts and potentially plan for new desired impacts; (2) it serves to assess the

effectiveness of the compass methodology in organizing indicators as well as promoting

systems-thinking among indicators; and (3) it can help to draw conclusions regarding the

overall desired impacts of volunteer tourism in the communities under study and then

serve as a reference to the volunteer tourism industry in planning for desired impacts.

These data obtained in the workshops are not generalizable beyond the five communities

in this multiple case study. Additionally, the development of specific measures of these

indicators that are “robust, credible, efficient (in time and cost of obtaining the data), and

useful to decision makers” (Sirakaya et al., 2001) will come when the community and the

sending organizations come together to discuss their own indicator sets. However, the

data indicate some trends that can help to guide the volunteer tourism industry and inspire

further exploration of the compass methodology as a tool for impact assessment.

It is important to point out that the literature on indicator development offers many

“master lists” of potential indicators (see, for example, the extensive indicator lists in

WTO, 2004). Each is unique but none are all-encompassing due to the location-specific

indicators likely to be generated in a participatory workshop conducted in situ. One con-

tribution of this paper is that it began with the development of a list of locally produced

indicators, identified themes in the indicator data, and ranked these indicator themes in

several ways. These themes and the ways in which they were prioritized can serve as a

reference for future implementation of the compass methodology to ensure that the indi-

cator development process does not overlook key indicator themes that may be of high

importance for communities.

This paper also contributes to the development and dissemination of a tool for host

communities and volunteer tourism organizations to identify and evaluate the local

impacts of volunteer projects. The host communities and organizations that supported

this multiple case study have already received informational booklets with a summary of

individual workshop results and the compass methodology. They will also receive more

detailed information with complete results, lessons learned, a summation of all data

obtained from all workshops, and a detailed explanation of the compass methodology and

other steps suggested by AtKisson (2004, 2011) and AtKisson Inc. (2011) as a follow-up

to the compass methodology. These will pave the way for future negotiations of third

space opportunities. By sharing information in this way, the volunteer tourism industry

and host communities will have a new tool in their reach for conducting impact

evaluations.

The compass approach was successful in identifying community priorities and devel-

oping and prioritizing indicators to evaluate the local impacts of volunteer tourism. Each

community case study was very culturally distinct and each corresponding volunteer tour-

ism program was also unique. One of the fundamental lessons drawn from this research is

that this tool (the compass) may be useful and adaptable to many other cultures and con-

texts in Latin America and across the developing world. Possible challenges may include

illiteracy, uneasiness with an activity based on writing and reading, cultural opposition to

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 743

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

outside ideas, unfamiliarity with a compass and little conceptual understanding of the four

compass points, and power differentials among participants.

This paper does not propose that the compass methodology is the only or the most

effective methodology for identifying and evaluating the community impacts of volunteer

tourism. A myriad of frameworks and methodologies exist in the literature on community

well-being, community development, sustainability, sustainable tourism, and other

related fields. Although very few of these have been applied to volunteer tourism, there is

potential for other useful methodologies to be applied to conduct impact evaluations for

volunteer tourism. Our selection of the compass methodology implies an emphasis on the

use of indicators, participatory process and community-level and bottom-up development,

in response to current literature on volunteer tourism that stresses these aspects.

Overall, we found the compass methodology was effective in developing and organiz-

ing indicators, promoting systems-thinking on the interrelations among indicators, priori-

tizing indicators, goal-setting for the future, and stressing the importance of measuring or

evaluating impacts. The compass required workshop participants to think of four unique

ways that volunteer tourism impacted them and their communities. The compass frame-

work and associated methodology also promotes a participatory process that empowers

community members, seeks their input, and regards all stakeholders as equally important

in the process. The use of the compass methodology may be another tool for promoting

bottom-up participatory development processes in volunteer tourism while encouraging

meaningful collaboration with international volunteer tourism organizations for develop-

ing third space opportunities for volunteer tourists.

Some challenges that were encountered must be addressed for future improvement of

the compass methodology, leading to further refinement of the compass and other effec-

tive methodologies, so that the many stakeholders present in the field of international vol-

unteer tourism can acquire the tools they need to effectively evaluate the local impacts of

volunteer tourism projects.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Dr Christopher Lupoli completed his PhD at the School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences at AuburnUniversity in 2013. His research focused on the social and ecological impacts of international vol-unteer tourism, with a particular emphasis on programs in Latin America. He now directs a studyabroad program in Quito, Ecuador.

Dr Wayde Morse is an assistant professor in the School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences at AuburnUniversity. His research interests include the linkages among social and ecological systems, recrea-tion, environmental services, conservation incentive programs, landowner decision-making andrural livelihoods.

Dr Conner Bailey is a professor of rural sociology in the Department of Agricultural Economics andRural Sociology at Auburn University. His research interests include commodity systems, thehuman dimensions of fisheries and coastal resources, grassroots environmental movements, envi-ronmental justice and problems of persistent poverty associated with resource dependence.

Dr John Schelhas is a researcher at the Southern Research Station of the USDA Forest Service. Hisresearch focuses on the social and cultural dimensions of natural resource use and conservation, andnatural resource management and policy.

744 C.A. Lupoli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

References

AtKisson, A. (2011). The sustainability transformation: How to accelerate positive change in chal-lenging times. CPI Antony Rowe.

AtKisson, A., Hatcher, R.L., & Green, S. (2004). Introducing Pyramid: A versatile process andplanning tool for accelerating sustainable development. Draft paper for publication. Retrieved12 December 2014 from http://www.rrcap.unep.org/uneptg06/course/Robert/PyramidArticle-v4b.pdf

AtKisson, Inc. (2011). Pyramid Lite: A simplified version of the Pyramid workshop process �PYRAMID 2012 special edition. Retrieved 12 December 2014 from http://www.balticuniv.uu.se/index.php/component/docman/doc_download/768-pyramid-lite

Benson, A., & Henderson, S. (2011). A strategic analysis of volunteer tourism organizations. TheService Industries Journal, 31(3), 405�424.

Benson, A., & Wearing, S. (2012). Volunteer tourism: Commodified trend or new phenomenon? InO. Moufakkir & P. Burns (Eds.), Controversies in tourism (pp. 242�254). Wallingford: CABI.

Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for sustainable development: Theory, method, applications. A reportto the Balaton Group. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Bossel, H. (2001). Assessing viability and sustainability: A systems-based approach for derivingcomprehensive indicator sets. Conservation Ecology, 5(2), 12. Retrieved 12 December 2014from http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art12/

Budruk, M., & Phillips, R. (2011). Quality-of-life community indicators for parks, recreation andtourism management. London: Springer ScienceCBusiness Media.

Butcher, J., & Smith, P. (2010). “Making a difference”: Volunteer tourism and development. Tour-ism Recreation Research, 35(1), 27�36.

Butler, R., & Hinch, T. (eds) (1996). Tourism and indigenous peoples. London: International Thom-son Business Press.

Cheong, S., & Miller, M. (2000). Power and tourism: A Foucauldian observation. Annals of TourismResearch, 27(2), 371�390.

Cole, S. (2006). Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. Journalof Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629�644.

Choi, H.C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism.Tourism Management, 27, 1274�1289.

Devereux, P. (2008). International volunteering for development and sustainability: Outdated pater-nalism or a radical response to globalization? Development in Practice, 18(3), 357�370.

Eddins, E. (2013). Bridging the gap: Volunteer tourism’s role in global partnership development. InK. Bricker, R. Black & S. Cottrell (Eds.) Sustainable tourism & the millennium developmentgoals (pp. 251�264). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Fee, L., & Mdee, A. (2011). How does it make a difference? Towards “accreditation” of the devel-opment impact of volunteer tourism. In A.M. Benson (Ed.), Volunteer tourism: Theory frame-work to practical applications (pp. 223�251). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gray, N., & Campbell, L. (2007). A decommodified experience? Exploring aesthetic, economic andethical values for volunteer ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5),463�482.

Guttentag, D. (2011). Volunteer tourism: As good as it seems? Tourism Recreation Research, 36(1),69�74.

Gursoy, D. Chi, C.G., & Dryer, P. (2009). An examination of local’s attitudes. Annals of TourismResearch, 36, 715�734.

Halpenny, E.A., & Caissie, L.T. (2003). Volunteering on nature conservation projects: Volunteerexperience, attitudes and values. Tourism Recreation Research, 28(3), 25�33.

Hitchcock, M. (1993). Tourism in South East Asia: Introduction. In M. Hitchcock, V. King and M.Parnwell (Eds.), Tourism in South East Asia (pp. 1�42). London: Routledge.

Hughes, G. (2002). Environmental indicators. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 457�477.Lupoli, C. (2013). An examination of volunteer tourism as a catalyst for promoting community

development and conservation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Auburn University,Auburn.

Lupoli, C., Morse, W.C., Bailey, C., & Schelhas, J. (2014). A survey of volunteer tourism organiza-tions: Understanding how indicators are used to evaluate the impacts of volunteer tourism inhost countries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(6), 898�921.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 745

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

Lyons, K.D. (2003). Ambiguities in volunteer tourism: A case study of Australians participating in aJ-1 visitor exchange programme. Tourism Recreation Research, 28(3), 5�13.

Lyons, K., Hanley, J., Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (2012). Gap year volunteer tourism: Myths of globalcitizenship? Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 361�378.

Mascarenhas, A., Coelho, P., Subtil, E., & Ramos, T.B. (2010). The role of common local indicatorsin regional sustainability assessment. Ecological Indicators, 10(3), 646�656.

McGehee, N. (2012). Oppression, emancipation, and volunteer tourism: Research propositions.Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 84�107.

McGehee, N. (2014). Volunteer tourism: Evolution, issues and futures. Journal of Sustainable Tour-ism, 22(6), 847�854.

McGehee, N., & Andereck, K. (2009). Volunteer tourism and the “voluntoured”: The case ofTijuana, Mexico. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 39�51.

McIntosh, A., & Zahra, A. (2007). A cultural encounter through volunteer tourism: Towards theideals of sustainable tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 541�556.

Mdee, A., & Emmott, R. (2008). Social enterprise with international impact: The case for fair tradecertification of volunteer tourism. Education, Knowledge & Economy, 2(3), 191�201.

Meadows, D. (2008). Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. A report tothe Balaton Group. Hartland Four Corners: The Sustainability Institute.

Miller, G., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Monitoring for a sustainable tourism transition. Walling-ford: CABI.

Njuki, J., Mapila, M., Kaaria, S., & Magombo, T. (2008). Using community indicators for evaluat-ing research and development programmes: Experiences from Malawi. Development in Prac-tice, 18(4�5), 633�642.

Palacios, C. (2010). Volunteer tourism, development and education in a postcolonial world: Con-ceiving global connections beyond aid. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(7), 861�878.

Raymond, E. (2008). “Make a Difference!”: The role of sending organizations in volunteer tourism.In K.D. Lyons & S. Wearing (Eds.), Journeys of discover in volunteer tourism (pp. 48�60).Wallingford: CABI.

Raymond, E. (2011). Volunteer tourism: Looking forward. Tourism Recreation Research, 36(1),77�79.

Reed, M., Fraser, E., & Dougill, A. (2005). An adaptive learning process for developing and apply-ing sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecological Economics, 59, 406�418.

Roberts, S., & Tribe, J. (2008). Sustainability indicators for small tourism enterprises � an explor-atory perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 575�594.

Schianetz, K., & Kavanagh, L. (2008). Sustainability indicators for tourism destinations: A complexadaptive systems approach using systemic indicator systems. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,16(6), 601�628.

Simpson, K. (2004). “Doing Development”: The gap year, volunteer-tourists and a popular practiceof development. Journal of International Development, 16, 681�692.

Sin, H.L. (2009). Volunteer tourism � “Involve me and I will learn?” Annals of Tourism Research,36(3), 480�501.

Sin, H. (2010). Who are we responsible to? Locals’ tales of volunteer tourism. Geoforum, 41,983�992.

Sirakaya, E., Jamal, T.B., & Choi, H.-S. (2001). Developing indicators for destination sustainabil-ity. In D.B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism (pp. 411�432). New York, NY:CAP International.

Strickland-Munro, Allison, H.E., & Moore, S.A. (2010). Using resilience concepts to investigate theimpacts of protected area tourism on communities. Annals of Tourism Research, 37, 499�519.

Tomazos, K., & Butler, R. (2009). Volunteer tourism: The new ecotourism? Anatolia: An Interna-tional Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(1), 196�211.

Tourism Research and Marketing. (2008). Volunteer tourism: A global analysis. Barcelona: Atlas.Vodopivek, B., & Jaffe, R. (2011). Save the world in a week: Volunteer tourism, development and

difference. European Journal of Development Research, 23, 111�128.Wearing, S. (2001). Volunteer tourism: Experiences that make a difference. New York: CABI.Wearing, S. (2004). Examining best practice in volunteer tourism. In R. Stebbins & M. Graham

(Eds.), Volunteering as leisure/leisure as volunteering: An international assessment (pp.209�224). Wallingford: CABI.

746 C.A. Lupoli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

Wearing, S., & McGehee, N.G. (2013). Volunteer tourism: A review. Tourism Management, 38,120�130.

Wearing, S., & Wearing, M. (2006). Rereading the subjugating tourist in neoliberalism: Postcolo-nial otherness and the tourist experience. Tourism Analysis, 11, 145�163.

Wood, M.E. (2004). A triple bottom line for sustainable tourism development for internationaldonors: Defining indicators for conservation, community and local enterprise development.Retrieved 9 December 2014 from http://www.eplerwood.com/pdf/EplerWood_Report_Jun04.pdf

World Tourism Organization. (2004). Indicators of sustainable development for tourism destina-tions: A guidebook. Madrid: Author.

Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Zahra, A., & McGehee, N.G. (2013). Volunteer tourism: A host community capital perspective.

Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 22�45.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 747

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

12:

21 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015